Identifying and using critical fields in quality management

ABSTRACT

Methods and systems for identifying critical fields in documents, for example so that quality improvement efforts can be prioritized on the critical fields. One aspect of the invention concerns a method for improving quality of a data processing operation in a plurality of documents. A set of documents is sampled. An error rate for fields in the documents is estimated based on the sampling. Critical fields are identified based on which fields have error rates higher than a threshold.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 11/389,612 filed Mar. 24, 2006; which is a continuation-in-partof U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/084,759 filed Mar. 18, 2005. Allof the foregoing are incorporated by reference in their entirety.

BACKGROUND

The present invention relates generally to quality management in adata-processing environment. Specifically, it relates to operationalrisk estimation and control associated with a data processing operation.

Errors in documents during a data processing operation, for example,data entry and data transformation are common. These errors may resultin significant losses to an organization, especially if a large amountof data is processed. It is therefore important to control the qualityof documents. Conventional techniques for controlling the quality ofdocuments include error detection and correction, and determination ofparameters for measuring errors. One such measurement parameter can bethe percentage of documents with errors. However, these parameters donot directly indicate the impact of the errors to the organization.

Further, the conventional techniques for error detection are manual innature. Errors can be detected by manually checking a set of documentsto catch errors and compute the error rate. However, this technique maybe error prone since the errors are detected manually. Further, thenumber of documents to be reviewed for catching errors (rather than justestimating error rates) is a function of the error rate. If the errorrate is high, then a high percentage of documents need to be reviewedfor catching a higher percentage of errors. Consequently, this techniquecan be labor intensive and therefore expensive.

Another technique for error prevention involves double typing the samedocument. The two different versions of the same document are comparedelectronically, and any discrepancies are reviewed and corrected.However, in this case each document needs to be double typed, which canbe a labor-intensive exercise. The double typing and the confirmation ofits correctness are done on a larger set of the documents. Further, asupervisor has to manually review each discrepancy to detect which ofthe two operators has made an error, or to correct the errors. Further,manual reviews themselves are prone to errors and result in wastage oflabor, money and time. Conventional techniques for detection of errorsand correction are therefore cumbersome and expensive.

Furthermore, data entry operators can become aware as to when thesupervisors are carrying out quality checks, and concentrate on qualityfor that period. If the process requires double entry of a completedocument, it may result in ‘gaming’ of the system by the data entryoperators, i.e., they may be lax in the initial data entry and catcherrors if there is a discrepancy.

In other conventional techniques, critical fields are pre-defined by asupervisor/management. These critical fields are defined on the basis oftheir subjective criticality. Subsequently, preventive and correctivemeasures are taken in these critical fields. Further these criticalfields themselves are not updated automatically and are only updatedperiodically during management review. As a result, the quality of theprocessed document may not be improved beyond a certain extent.

Accordingly, there is a need for developing techniques that manage thequality of documents. Such techniques should be cost-effective,scalable, and less time-consuming. There is a need for techniques thatcan measure error rate, control error rate, predict errors, and enabletheir subsequent prevention. Further, there is a need for techniquesthat ensure that the critical fields are identified dynamically andautomatically.

Further, these techniques should enable benchmarking of organizations,i.e., how well organizations control data processing operational riskrelative to one another. Such a benchmark should be comparable acrossprocess variations, organization size, document type, etc. Also,measurement schemes for data processing operators and systems should bedirectly correlated to measures used to evaluate the organizations. Thisenables true alignment of measurement schemes with performancerequirements. These techniques should also deter ‘gaming’ of the systemby data entry operators and supervisors.

SUMMARY

Various embodiments of the invention provide methods and systems foridentifying critical fields in documents, for example so that qualityimprovement efforts can be prioritized on the critical fields.

One aspect of the invention concerns a method for improving quality of adata processing operation in a plurality of documents. A set ofdocuments is sampled. An error rate for fields in the documents isestimated based on the sampling. Critical fields are identified based onwhich fields have error rates higher than a threshold. Which fields arethe critical fields may be automatically updated on a dynamic basis. Inone approach, the error rate for a field is based on both a frequency oferrors in the field and a relative weight for that field. For example,the relative weight might be based on the operational impact of dataprocessing errors in that field.

Various types of thresholds can be used. For example, the threshold maybe a predetermined constant value. Alternately, the threshold may varyas a function of the relative weight of a field. It may also beadjustable, either by the user or dynamically based on the sampleddocuments. The threshold may be an aggregate across multiple fields, notjust a threshold for a single field. For example, the set of criticalfields may be determined by selecting the critical fields with thehighest error rates until the aggregate sum of error rates reaches athreshold. The threshold can also vary as a function of the distributionof error rates for the fields. For example, if the distribution of errorrates is bimodal, the threshold may be set at some point between the twomodes.

In various embodiments, the error rate for a field is determined in partby estimating a probability that data entered for a field in a documentis in error, without knowing a correct transcription for the field. Thedata entered for a given field typically has a distribution among thedifferent answers provided. Data-entered answers that are identical forma cluster. For example, if three operators type (or otherwise dataenter) the same answer for a field, that is a cluster. A mode is thecluster for the most frequently appearing answer. There can be multiplemodes if different answers are data-entered with the same frequency.

In one aspect, estimating the probability of error accounts forclusters, modes and/or their equivalencies. Equivalencies can bedetermined based on the number of and sizes of clusters, as well asother factors. In one approach, the clusters that have the largest sizefor a field are determined to be equivalent and correct answers. Inanother approach, these clusters are determined to be not equivalent.Nevertheless, a single cluster is not selected as the correct answer.Rather, each non-equivalent cluster is assigned a probability of being acorrect answer that is a function of the cluster's size. In yet anotherapproach, the cluster, for which the associated operators have a loweraverage historical error rate, is selected as a correct answer for afield. Clusters could also be selected as the correct answer, based onwhether the associated operators have a lower error rate for the fieldwithin the set of documents currently being evaluated or whether theassociated operators have a lower historic error rate for the field.Estimating the correct answer can also take into account whether thedata entered for a field is the default value for that field.

Various embodiments of the present invention further provide methods andsystems for quality management of a plurality of documents for adata-processing operation in an entity. Each document comprises at leastone field. The entity includes an organization, or one or more employeesof the organization.

In an embodiment of the invention, the method measures the quality of aplurality of documents in a data-processing operation. A relativeoperational risk is assigned for errors in each field of the pluralityof documents. The assignment is based on the relative operational impactof the errors, and a frequency of errors is determined for each field.Finally, an error rate is determined, based on the relative operationalrisk and the frequency of errors associated with each field.

In another embodiment, a method for quality management of a plurality ofdocuments for a data-processing operation in an entity is provided. Themethod comprises determination of error rates. Further, critical fieldsin the documents are dynamically identified based on the relativeoperational impact and the frequency of errors in the various fields.Errors are then reduced in the critical fields by using, for example,double typing of the data in the critical fields.

Further, the occurrence of errors is predicted by determining acorrelation between them and a set of process and external attributes.The possibility of occurrence of the errors is notified to a supervisorif the attributes exhibit the characteristics correlated with errors.The supervisor can then take preventive measures. Alternatively, otherpreventative/corrective actions can be taken based on the predictions.This process of error prediction, error rate computation and errorprevention can be performed independently or iteratively, therebyreducing the occurrence of the errors. Further, the set of errorcorrelation attributes and the set of critical fields also get updateddepending upon changes in the measured error rate.

In an embodiment of the invention, a set of documents is randomlyidentified for the purpose of sampling. Such a random sampling is usedfor determining the probability of errors related to specific fields ofthe documents.

In another embodiment of the invention, the ‘operational risk weightederror’ is identified for each employee for each field corresponding tothe randomly sampled documents. This helps in identifying the specifictraining needs of the employees and in better targeting trainingefforts. Employees may also be assigned to various tasks based on theirerror rates.

Furthermore, a pattern of errors can be identified at a process leveland an employee level. The identified error patterns are then correlatedwith the root causes of errors. Subsequently, on the basis of thecorrelation, a database is generated. The database can then be used foridentifying the root causes of further error patterns. The database canbe used to diagnose the root cause of an error pattern, for example, theroot cause of an error pattern can be training related or processrelated or system related. Once an error pattern (or high frequency oferrors) corresponding to a field has been identified, either forindividual employees or for groups of employees, the database can alsobe used for a predictive diagnosis of the error. The diagnosis may be atraining, system or process error. If the diagnosis identifies atraining need, then the method described in the previous paragraph canbe used to better allocate training resources to the specific weaknessesof the employee or to specific weak employees. Employees may also beassigned to various tasks based on their error patterns.

Furthermore, the database can provide information regarding the historicdiagnosis of previously observed error patterns corresponding to a fieldand/or an employee. For example, the database can provide historic dataabout diagnosis of a previous error or error pattern, and themethodology adopted at that time for mitigating the error.

The quality management system pertaining to the plurality of documentsincludes means for determining error rates. The means for reducingerrors is responsible for reducing errors by focusing on critical fieldsin the plurality of documents. It also updates the critical fields basedon changes in error rates and patterns. The means for predicting theoccurrence of errors predicts errors by determining a correlationbetween the errors and a set of attributes. It also updates the set ofattributes based on changes in error rates and patterns. A means forcontrolling is used to coordinate between the remaining system elementsof the quality management system. The means for controlling keeps a tabon the quality of the plurality of documents.

Other aspects of the invention include components and applications forthe approaches described above, as well as systems and methods for theirimplementation.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The preferred embodiments of the invention will hereinafter be describedin conjunction with the appended drawings provided to illustrate and notto limit the invention, wherein like designations denote like elements,and in which:

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary data-processingenvironment, suitable for use with the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a flowchart depicting a method for measuring the quality of aplurality of documents in the data-processing environment, in accordancewith an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a flowchart depicting a method for reducing errors, inaccordance with an embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 4 is a flowchart depicting a method for preventing errors, inaccordance with an embodiment of the present invention; and

FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a system for quality management,in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.

DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

Various embodiments of the present invention relate to qualitymanagement of an entity for a data-processing operation and providemethods and systems pertaining to operational risk control in thedata-processing operations. Data processing operations include, but arenot limited to, data entry, transfer, storage, reporting andtransformation. The entity can be an organization such as a businessprocess outsourcing organization or an in-house corporate dataprocessing operation. The entity can also be one or more employees ofthe organization. Various embodiments of the invention measure errorrate associated with a data processing operation for an employee or anorganization. This involves identifying the relative operational impactassociated with the errors and the frequency of the errors. Further,critical fields, i.e., the fields wherein the product of the relativeoperational impact of errors and error frequency can be large areidentified.

In an embodiment of the invention, critical fields are identified basedon the frequency of errors and the relative operational impact of theerrors in the fields. Data in these critical fields can be double typedto ensure that the errors in these critical fields are reduced.Subsequently, these critical fields can be updated and the processrepeated on the new identified critical fields.

In another embodiment of the invention, occurrences of errors are alsopredicted based on the correlation of errors with a set of attributes.Where a high correlation is identified between occurrence of errors andan attribute, a supervisor can be alerted regarding the same.Subsequently, the supervisor can take preventive actions to avoid theoccurrence of the errors. In an alternate embodiment, othercorrective/preventative measures can be undertaken. The working of theerror prediction process is verified by measuring the error rate. Theset of attributes is then updated based on the error rate.

FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary data-processingenvironment that is suitable for use with various embodiments of thepresent invention. The data-processing environment includes a processinput block 102 that provides the input data, which is to be processedin the form of transcribed files or documents. This input data isprovided to employees 104, 106, and 108 in an organization. The employeecan then process the data, for example type in the data into electronicform. Employees 104, 106, and 108 may be for example, medicaltranscription clerks, and data may be provided to them for medicaltranscription. For the sake of simplicity, only a few employees havebeen shown in FIG. 1. In actuality, the number of employees may be muchhigher. In an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, theorganization is a business process outsourcing (BPO) organization. Whileentering data, the employee may make errors. A quality management block110 controls the occurrence of errors in the document being processed.In general, quality management block 110 is responsible for detecting,preventing, predicting and controlling errors. The processed documentsare finally sent to a process output block 112 for delivery.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart depicting a method for measuring the quality of aplurality of documents for a data-processing operation, in accordancewith an embodiment of the present invention. For the purpose ofillustration, the method is hereinafter described assuming a data entryoperation.

Each document can include several fields. An exemplary document caninclude several fields such as ‘Name’, ‘Address’, ‘Telephone Number’,‘Email Address’, ‘Social Security Number’, and so on. To process thedocument, an employee, for example a data entry operator, can enter datain each of these fields. Depending on the purpose for which the documentis being processed, some fields may be more important than others, forexample, the social security number can be more important than thetelephone number. Therefore, an error made while entering the socialsecurity number can have a greater impact or ‘operational impact’ thanone made while entering the telephone number. In general, each field ofa document can have a different operational impact.

To measure the quality of the documents, a relative weight or ‘relativeoperational risk’ (w) is assigned to errors corresponding to each fieldof the plurality of documents at step 202. Operational risk refers tothe risk of losses due to errors in data processing operations. Relativeoperational risk implies relative loss incurred due to errors in afield. The assignment is based on the operational impact of the errors,i.e., an error with a larger operational impact is weighted relativelyhigher than an error that has a smaller operational impact.

At step 204, a frequency (n) of errors is determined for each field inthe plurality of documents, i.e., the number of errors in each field isdetermined. In an embodiment of the invention, n is determined bysampling a set of documents and measuring the number of errors in eachfield. Exemplary methods to determine n are described in the later partof the description section.

At step 206, an error rate (E) is determined. The error rate E is ameasure of how well the operational risk is being controlled. E is ameasure of the quality of the plurality of documents and indicates thelevel of operational risk attributable to the data processing activitiesof an employee, a group of employees or the organization. Thedetermination of E is based on the values of w and n for a set of fieldsrepresented by S={F₁, F₂, . . . , F_(i), . . . } in the plurality ofdocuments, for example, wherein the relative operational risk of a fieldF_(i) is w_(i) and the frequency of errors is n_(i). Therefore, therelative error rate (e_(i)) for the field F_(i) is given as

$\begin{matrix}{e_{i} = \frac{w_{i}n_{i}}{\sum\limits_{i}w_{i}}} & (1)\end{matrix}$where n is equal to zero or one for a given observation. In general, theerror rate for a document across all the fields in the set S is given as

$\begin{matrix}{e_{j} = \frac{\sum\limits_{i}{w_{i}n_{i}}}{\sum\limits_{i}w_{i}}} & (2)\end{matrix}$where n is equal to zero or one for a given observation. The averageerror rate for a sample of documents is given as

$\begin{matrix}{{e_{avg} = \frac{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}e_{j}}{N}}{{i.e.},{e_{avg} = \frac{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}{w_{j}n_{j}}}{N{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N}w_{j}}}}}} & (3)\end{matrix}$where N is the number of documents in the sample. The average error ratecan be normalized to a base of 100 to get the error rate E. Therefore,E=100 implies that each field in each of the documents has errors.

E can be reduced by decreasing the frequency of errors in fields with alarger operational impact. Further, E is independent of parameters suchas the structure and size of documents, the total operational impact oferrors in the plurality of documents, and the size of the organization.The value of E can be used to determine an expected operational risk(EOR). EOR is the operational risk that is expected from a dataprocessing operation. In an embodiment of the present invention, the EORis obtained by multiplying e_(avg) with the operational impact of makingan error in every field in each of the plurality of documents.

EOR is a measure that can be used in accounting risk reserves and isrelevant for regulations such as Sarbanes Oxley and Basel II.Consequently, E is directly related to how the organization as a wholeis measured, thus effectively aligning measurement and performanceacross the layers of the organization.

Frequencies of errors in various fields are measured by sampling a setof documents from amongst the plurality of documents. Exemplary methodsto sample the documents and identify the frequency of errors in thesampled documents are hereinafter described.

In one embodiment of the present invention, a set of documents of whichthe correct transcriptions (entries) are known a priori, is sampled toestimate error rates. To estimate quality, a statistically significantsample size (greater than 30) is considered. The 95% confidence intervalfor the estimated error rate is sample mean±2× standard error of mean.It is to be noted that the sample size does not directly depend on thepopulation size or the expected quality. However, the confidenceinterval could be tighter if the sample standard deviation is smaller.In an embodiment of the present invention, one or more employees typethe set of documents for which transcriptions already exist. Thisgenerates a new transcribed version of each document from the set ofdocuments. Each new transcription is then electronically compared withits corresponding known transcription, and any discrepancy between thetwo transcriptions is termed as an error, unless it has already beenspecified or learned (e.g., from cluster analysis). For example, if itis specified or learned that ‘Lane’ may also be typed as ‘Ln.’, thisdiscrepancy is not considered to be an error. By identifying the numberof such errors, n is recorded for each field in the plurality ofdocuments. The recorded values of n are then used to determine E. Inthis embodiment, the E of a data entry operator is an absolute value,i.e., it is not relative to the error rates of other data entryoperators.

In an alternate embodiment of the present invention, a set of sectionsis identified in each document from amongst the set of documents forwhich transcriptions already exist. A section may or may not include oneor more fields. Sections from amongst the set of sections are randomlycombined to generate a new set of documents, wherein correcttranscriptions are known for each component section. The combinationprocess is automated and ensures that each document in the new set ofgenerated documents includes only one instance of each field in theoriginal documents. In this way, a large number of documents with knowntranscriptions can be generated from a small number of documents withknown transcriptions. For example, if there are m documents in the setof documents, and p sections in each document from amongst the set ofdocuments, e documents can be generated for sampling. The new set ofgenerated documents is then provided to employees for typing. Eachsection of each new transcription is electronically compared with thecorresponding section in the original set of documents with knowntranscriptions, and any discrepancy between the two transcriptions istermed as an error. As in the previous embodiment, in this embodimentthe E of a data entry operator is an absolute value, i.e., it is notrelative to the error rates of other data entry operators.

In another embodiment of the present invention, a set of documents isidentified randomly from amongst the plurality of documents for thepurpose of sampling. For each document in the sample, employees such asdata processing operators are paired randomly, to generate a set of (oneor more) random pairs of data entry operators. The random pairs aregenerated such that no employee is in more than one pair for a givendocument. A document from amongst the set of documents is typed by eachdata entry operator belonging to a pair from amongst the correspondingset of random pairs of data entry operators. In this way, each documentfrom amongst the set of documents is typed, so that there are at leasttwo versions of each document. The two versions are electronicallycompared with each other, and any discrepancy is termed as an error. Then is recorded for each field in the plurality of documents. The recordedvalues of n are then used to determine E. It is to be noted that the Eof a data entry operator is relative to the error rates of other dataentry operators. This is because a discrepancy could have been caused byeither of the data processing operator in the random pair. However, theerror rates of multiple random samples are considered for computing theE of the data entry operator. In an embodiment of the invention, thesample can be large enough. As a result, the random pairings ofemployees can be statistically ‘backed out’, i.e., average relativeerror rate of a specific employee can be measured. Moreover, the averagerelative frequency of errors for each field can also be accuratelymeasured. This can be achieved without identifying the data entryoperator or operators who have actually made the errors corresponding tothe discrepancies. This embodiment eliminates the need for sampledocuments with correctly known transcriptions. This embodiment iscompletely automatic and can be reliably carried out in a manner whereemployees can not become aware of which documents are being used forsampling and therefore can not ‘game’ the sampling.

In another embodiment of the present invention, a set of documents isidentified randomly from the plurality of documents for the purpose ofsampling. For each document, employees such as data-processing operatorsare grouped randomly to generate one or more random groups of data-entryoperators. Each group includes at least three data-entry operators. Therandom groups are so generated that no data-entry operator belongs tomore than one group for a document. Each data entry operator in a grouptypes the same document from the set of given documents. In this way,each document from amongst the set of documents is typed, so that thereare at least three versions of each document. These different versionsof the same document are electronically compared with each other. Foreach field in the document, the most common answer is identified, basedon the comparison. For each field, the most common answer, hereinafterreferred to as the ‘plurality vote’ answer, is likely to be the correctanswer as there are multiple ways to get an answer wrong, but only oneway to get an answer right.

While identifying the plurality vote answer, ‘specified equivalencies’or ‘learned equivalencies’ are also considered. For example, if it isspecified that ‘Lane’ may also be typed as ‘Ln.’, both versions would beconsidered identical for the purposes of identifying the plurality voteanswer. In some cases, more than one answer may appear equally often. Ifthere are m different answers each occurring the same number of times,and no other answer occurring more frequently, referred to as multiplemodes, each of these answers have equal probability of being the correctanswer. The answers are assigned the probability of (m−1)/m of being anincorrect answer. Moreover, while assigning the probability of anincorrect answer, consideration can be taken of whether a multiple modewas the default value. For example, if the data-entry screen for a“Marriage Status” field has a default value of “married,” and three dataentry operators selected “single,” while three operators selected“married”, then “single” may be selected as a ‘plurality vote’ answer.This is because it is more likely that a data entry operator forgot tochange the default value rather than the data entry operator activelyselected the incorrect value. In the fields where m multiple modesexist, and the compared transcription contains one of the modes for thatfield, instead of counting the whole error, only (m−1)/m proportion ofthe error is counted.

Other factors can also be used to determine which mode (or modes) areconsidered to be the correct answer. For example, each mode hasassociated operators who have selected or data-entered that mode. Thehistorical error rate of the associated operators may be used todetermine which mode is correct. Other error rates may also be used, forexample, the average error rate of the associated operators for thecurrent field of interest, or averaged across the current set ofdocuments.

Further, as the number of employees in each randomly selected group ofemployees increases, the probability of multiple modes for a given fieldcorrespondingly decreases. However, this decrease in probability may notnecessarily be proportional to the increase in the number of employees.In one approach, once the plurality vote answer for each field in adocument is identified, the plurality vote answers are combined, toautomatically generate a plurality vote answer for the entire document.

The approaches used for multiple modes can also be applied to clusters.Clusters are the same as modes, except that the size of each clusterneed not be the same highest number. Modes are the clusters with thelargest (same) size. Other factors can also be used to estimatelikelihood of error based on comparisons of answers, without knowing apriori which answer is the correct answer. For example, if differentemployees data-enter different answers for the same field, some of theseanswers may be consistent with previously identified error patterns.These answers may be assigned a higher likelihood of being in error.

The analysis of modes or clusters can also be used to learnequivalencies. So if clusters or modes of the phase “Lane” are highlycorrelated with clusters or modes of the phrase “Ln” then the softwarecould learn that “Lane” is equivalent to “Ln” and thus this discrepancyshould be ignored. This kind of learning can also be context specificsuch that St is considered equivalent to Street in certain contexts butnot in others where St could be equivalent to Saint.

Each transcription entered by the employees is then electronicallycompared with its corresponding plurality vote answer. Any discrepancybetween the two transcriptions is termed as an error, unless it hasalready been specified or learned. For example, if it is specified that‘Lane’ may also be typed as ‘Ln.’, this discrepancy is not considered tobe an error. By identifying the number of such errors, n is recorded foreach field in the plurality of documents. The recorded values of n arethen used to determine E. Accordingly, the value of E determined for adata entry operator is an absolute value, and is not relative to theerror rates of other data entry operators.

As described above, various embodiments of the present inventioneliminate the need for sampling documents with correctly knowntranscriptions. Such a process is completely automatic and can becarried out in a reliable manner wherein employees are not aware thatthey are being tested. This is because they have no way ofdifferentiating the documents being used for sampling from the generalflow of documents that they process. Therefore, an employee cannot‘game’ the sampling.

As described earlier, w may be different for different fields. Further,an employee can make more errors in some fields of a document comparedto other fields of the same document. Therefore, there can be criticalfields in which the product of w and n are higher, compared to otherfields. The expected operational risk can be controlled by eithercontrolling n or reducing w in the critical fields. Reducing errors inthe critical fields can control the n. Changing operating processes cancontrol the w.

In an embodiment of the invention, critical fields within a document canbe identified based on e_(i). In an embodiment, a small set of fieldsfrom amongst the complete set of fields can be the critical fields. Theemployee/organization can substantially improve the overall quality,i.e., control the overall operational risk, by takingcorrective/preventive actions in these critical fields. Since thecorrective/preventive actions need to be taken in only a small set offields, a greater proportion of expected operational risk can be avoidedwhile incurring a proportionately lower cost.

FIG. 3 is a flowchart of the system for reducing errors, in accordancewith an embodiment of the present invention. At step 302, a set ofcritical fields is identified in the plurality of documents. Theidentification of this set is based on w and n. The error rate (e) ofeach field is determined, and the set of fields, of which the values ofe are higher than a threshold, are identified as critical fields. Forexample, if 20% of the set of fields contribute 80% of the total errorrate, then these 20% of the set of fields comprise the critical fields.In various embodiments of the invention, the identification of thecritical fields can be automated.

In an embodiment of the present invention, the threshold is apredetermined value. In another embodiment of the present invention, thethreshold depends on the operational impact and the value of n in eachfield in the plurality of documents. In another embodiment, thethreshold is automatically set through standard applications such as‘goal seek’ so that the sum of the e of the critical fields is equal toan arbitrary percentage (for example, 50%) of E (after accounting forany scaling factors).

The threshold is primarily set based on the customers' preference.Customers have to balance their risk tolerance and operational budgetand decide their threshold for critical fields. The lower the riskappetite and the higher the operational budget, the greater is thepercentage of document fields that can be considered critical fields.The distribution of errors among fields is also a factor determining thethreshold. For example, if errors are highly concentrated among a fewoperationally important fields, then the threshold can be quite high(i.e. number of critical fields can be low) but still have the criticalfields account for a significant proportion of expected operationalrisk.

The critical fields can also be similarly identified for each employeeand training effort can be preferentially directed to the uniquecritical fields of each employee. This allows better targeting andcustomization and, therefore, better returns on investment of trainingactivities.

At step 304, the data in the identified set of critical fields aredouble typed for each critical field. In other words, two different dataentry operators type the data in each of the identified sets of criticalfields. The typing generates two different versions of the data in eachcritical field. At step 306, the two versions are compared with eachother, and any discrepancy between the two is termed as an error.

The errors are then removed at step 308, to correct the data in theidentified set of critical fields. The errors can be removed throughvarious ways. For example, a human supervisor may look into the error inorder to mitigate it or the error may be removed by automaticallycalculating the plurality vote answer and then replacing the erroneousanswer with the calculated plurality vote answer. As a result, errors inthe critical fields can be substantially reduced. In an exemplaryembodiment of the present invention, double typing 10% of the fields inthe plurality of documents can reduce E by 50%. In this manner, doubletyping a small number of fields reduces E by a large factor. In otherwords, expending a small amount of labor and cost results in a largeimprovement in the quality of documents. Focusing on critical fieldsavoids undue usage of labor for error reduction. The documents withcorrected data can be subsequently sampled again at step 310 to checkthe value of E. A decrease in E indicates a reduction in the operationalrisk. However, an increase or no change in E indicates that criticalfields may have changed. Critical fields can change due to employeebehavior or other changes in data entry operation. In such scenario, thecritical fields can be automatically updated, i.e., new critical fieldsare identified and the steps 302-310 repeated again. The critical fieldsare also updated based on sampling. For example, companies may introduceprocess innovations that reduce error impacts or error frequency for thecritical fields. As a result, the critical fields may shift. In suchscenario, the critical fields are re-identified.

In an embodiment of the invention, once discrepancies are identified atstep 306, the correct typing is manually identified. In anotherembodiment of the invention, rules based or artificial intelligencealgorithms can be used to identify the correct typing.

In an embodiment of the present invention, identifying the ‘root cause’of errors can help prevent errors. The root cause of errors may bedetermined by analyzing the error patterns in an automated orsemi-automated manner. The error identification and measurementprocedures provide rich data on error patterns. For example, the‘operational risk weighted error rate’ for each employee for each datafield can be easily identified. In some cases, a heavily skewed errorpattern may be identified. In this case, for a given field, a smallnumber of employees can have a disproportionately higher error rate thanthe average employees. This can indicate a training problem, which maybe the root cause of these errors. In other cases, it may be found thatalmost all employees consistently make more errors in a particularfield. This may indicate a process or system error.

Over a period of time, a database of such error patterns and theircorresponding historical diagnosis can be generated. Subsequently, thedatabase can be used to automatically predict fields that may haveclearly identifiable root causes of errors. The database canadditionally be used for diagnosing the possible cause of an error inthat particular field. The database can be used to automatically predictthe fields that may have clearly identifiable root causes of errors andwhat may be the possible diagnosis for that field. For example, thepossible diagnosis may be a training, system, or process error. Further,the database can be used to indicate what were the historic diagnosesand corresponding solutions in the database for the error pattern inquestion. The prediction may be carried out using a simple correlationengine which identifies the most commonly occurring (or most highlycorrelated) root cause(s) for a given error pattern. Other techniques,such as more advanced clustering, pattern recognition and learningalgorithms can be used to identify the appropriate cluster to which aspecific error pattern belongs and what is the most likely diagnosis forthat error pattern based on the database of previous error patterns anddiagnoses.

In an embodiment of the present invention, predicting the occurrence oferrors can also prevent errors. FIG. 4 is a flowchart depicting themethod for preventing errors by predicting the occurrence of errors (orby predicting an increase in the occurrence of errors). At step 402, aset of attributes is identified for correlation with the likelihood ofoccurrences of errors in the processed documents. At step 404, theattributes that are the best predictors of errors (most closelycorrelated with occurrences of errors) are identified. In variousembodiments of the invention, a training process identifies theattributes. In an embodiment of the invention, the training is performedby using algorithms that measure correlation between an event (forexample, an error) that has happened or not happened and an attribute(for example, the time of day). Other algorithms are based on artificialintelligence such as neural networks that use standard methodologies toidentify such correlations.

In an embodiment of the present invention, data entry errors are mappedagainst various attributes to identify the best predictors of errors.For example, the occurrence of data entry errors can be mapped againstthe keystroke variability rate, i.e., the variation in the rate at whicha user strokes the keys. It is observed that the frequency of errorsincreases with increase in the keystroke variability rate. Therefore,keystroke rate variability can be a good attribute for error prediction.Similarly, the occurrence of data entry errors is mapped against severalother attributes to determine the attributes that are the bestpredictors of errors.

At step 406, an exemplary learning algorithm is selected to ensure bestprediction of errors based on the identified attributes. Step 406 mayalternatively be performed before step 404, i.e., a best predictivealgorithm is first identified and then the algorithm is used in trainingmode to identify the best predictive attributes. At step 408, thecorrelation is determined between the errors in the plurality ofdocuments and a set of attributes. This correlation is based on theidentified learning algorithm. The learning algorithm can be based onfor example, fuzzy logic, neural network, Bayes Nets, abstract localsearch and genetic algorithm.

A learning algorithm can establish a correlation between two events, forexample, for two given events A and B. The learning algorithm canestablish that if A occurs, it is likely that B also do so. Given anumber of attributes, the learning algorithm can learn which attributeshave the strongest correlation with, or are the best indicators of theoccurrence of errors. Exemplary attributes can be the lightingconditions in the data entry operations, the complexity of the documentbeing processed, the eye color of the data entry operator, the time whenthe errors were made, backlog levels when the errors occurred, and thevariability of the keystroke rate of the data entry operator when theerrors occurred.

Given these attributes, the learning algorithm can determine that thekeystroke rate variability is a good indicator of the occurrence oferrors. This correlation can now be used to predict the occurrence oferrors. The learning algorithm can also determine that the eye color ofthe data entry operator is not correlated with him or her making errors.Therefore, the learning algorithm will reject this attribute.

Subsequently, at step 410, the supervisor is appropriately notifiedabout the likelihood of errors occurring. For example, if the keystrokerate of a data entry operator shows high variations, a supervisor of thedata entry operator can be notified that it is likely that the dataentry operator may make an error in the near future. The supervisor canthen take preventive actions to prevent errors. For example, thesupervisor can verify the prediction by checking the data entered by theoperator. Further, the supervisor can alert the data entry operator iferrors are identified. The supervisor may also offer the data entryoperator a short break or reduce his or her backlog levels.Alternatively, instead of notifying the supervisor, the system mayinitiate alternative preventative/corrective actions such as routingdata for double typing. For example, the system can ask another employeeto double type the data. It is to be noted these corrective andpreventive actions are exemplary and any other corrective/preventiveaction can be taken without diverting from the scope and spirit of theinvention.

At step 412, the error rate is monitored to confirm that the errorprediction process has not gone out of synch. In an embodiment of thepresent invention, the plurality of documents is periodically sampled tomonitor the error prediction process, and E is determined subsequently.Monitoring is required to check the correctness of the error predictionprocess, for example, the learning algorithm may predict that aparticular operator is going to make errors. However, the next fewdocuments typed by him may contain no errors. Such inconsistencies inerror prediction can be verified, based on the value of E. For example,a low value of E in the above-mentioned case can imply that the learningalgorithm has gone out of calibration. This is because the operator mayadapt his behavior accordingly, for example, errors may occur whenoperators chat among themselves and stop typing while processing adocument. In this case, each time an operator stops typing for more thanfifteen seconds, the supervisor is notified that errors are likely tooccur. The supervisor then checks on the operators. The operators mayrealize that the supervisor checks on them whenever they start chatting,and therefore stop chatting among themselves. This, in turn, can preventthe occurrence of errors due to chatting. However, errors may now occurdue to other attributes not known to the learning algorithm. In such asituation, the learning algorithm is recalibrated. This recalibrationmay be initiated automatically or manually and can be achieved byupdating the set of attributes, i.e., by identifying new attributes thatare likely to cause errors and rejecting those that are not correlatedto errors; and/or by selecting a better prediction algorithm asdescribed in steps 404, and 406.

The error measurement algorithms described above, such as the pluralityvote algorithm, generate rich data on the specific error patterns ofeach data entry employee. Such data can be used to double check the dataentered by an employee. For example, an employee may have the habit oftyping ‘7’ instead of the character ‘Z.’ Such error patterns are highlyemployee-specific and generic rules to catch such errors may not be veryeffective. However, the employee-specific error patterns gatheredthrough the error measurement algorithms can be used to customizedeterministic algorithms specific to each employee (e.g.,employee-specific rules), or to train learning algorithms specific toeach employee. This specificity can significantly increase theeffectiveness of such algorithms. This specificity can also be appliedon a field by field basis, for example to generate field-specific rulesor to train learning algorithms specific to each field.

The quality of the plurality of documents is managed in an embodiment ofthe present invention. E is measured to check the initial quality of theplurality of documents. The errors are then reduced, as describedearlier. The occurrence of errors may also be prevented by identifyingand mitigating ‘root causes’ of errors or by predicting such errors. Theprocess of measuring E, and reducing errors can be performedrepetitively to monitor and control the overall quality of the documentsgenerated by the employee. It should be noted that the errormeasurement, reduction and prediction processes could operateindependently. They can also operate simultaneously or at differenttimes. These processes can make use of one or more sampling schemes,described earlier, to measure E. They can also use any other samplingscheme without limiting the scope of the present invention.

The various embodiments of the method described above can be implementedby quality management system. In an embodiment of the present invention,this quality management system resides in quality management block 110.FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating quality management system 500, inaccordance with an embodiment of the present invention. Qualitymanagement system 500 includes an error rate measurement module 502, anerror reduction module 504, an error occurrence prediction module 506,and a control module 508. Error rate measurement module 502 is the meansfor determining E; error reduction module 504 enables reduction of theerrors in the critical fields of the plurality of documents; and erroroccurrence prediction module 506 prevents errors by predicting theiroccurrence, and establishes a correlation between errors and a set ofattributes by implementing learning algorithms. Control module 508coordinates the other modules of the software system to control thequality of the plurality of documents. In particular, control module 508monitors the change in the error rates on account ofpreventive/corrective actions taken to reduce the errors. Control module508 updates the set of attributes for module 506 in case the attributesthat impact the error occurrences change. Further, it periodicallyupdates the critical fields for module 504. For example, companies mayintroduce process innovations that reduce error impacts or errorfrequency for the initially identified critical fields. Consequently,the critical fields can shift.

In various embodiments of the invention, system elements of qualitymanagement system 500 are implemented in the form of software modules,firmware modules and their combination thereof.

It is to be noted that while the various embodiments of the inventionhave been explained by using the example of data entry operation, theinvention is applicable for any data processing operation such as datareporting, data storage and transformation. An exemplary data reportingoperation can be an advance shipment note that is sent by a client to arecipient of the shipment as well as to the shipment agency, for examplea courier agency. There can be discrepancies in the shipment notes sendto the recipient and the shipment agency. The various embodiments of theinvention can be used to measure the quality of reporting of shipmentdetails by the client. Similarly, the error-identification technology orthe plurality vote answer generation algorithm can be used to improvethe error rate of Optical Character Recognition (OCR) systems. Forexample, the same document can be scanned by three or more different OCRsystems, in order to automatically generate a plurality vote answer fromthe output of the OCRs. This plurality vote answer is likely to be moreaccurate than any of the individual OCR scans.

According to various embodiments of the invention, the error measurementalgorithms, such as those based on the plurality vote answer generationalgorithm, can also be used to quickly measure the operational risk dueto differences in systems that are supposed to have identical output.For example, a bank may acquire another bank and wish to merge theirexisting systems. A random statistical sampling could be carried outwith a representative sample, and the operational risk measure E couldbe used to quantify the discrepancies between the disparate systems thathave to be consolidated. Similar experiments can be conducted atdifferent points in infrastructure consolidation projects to quantifythe reductions in discrepancy, and the improvements in consolidationachieved till date. Such approaches can be used to measure differencesdue to different organizations, due to different processes, due todifferent systems, or changes over time. For example, if a process is tobe transferred from one organization to another, these approaches can beused to measure the differences between the original process and thetransferred process, and to direct actions and/or to make changes toareas in the transferred process which would benefit the most. Forexample, the underlying patterns of the differences between the originalprocess and the transferred process can be used to direct documentationefforts to the specific parts of the original process that seem to beambiguous, direct potentially operator-specific training efforts to theparts of the transferred process that require the most training, andautomation efforts to parts of the process that can be automated basedon the patterns observed. These actions can be based on the measurederrors, measured error rates (which accounts for both frequency oferrors and relative operation risk) and/or error patterns (includingpatterns in the differences between the data-entered or the errors forthe original and transferred processes).

The embodiments of the present invention have the advantage that theyprovide an error rate that directly measures the effectiveness incontrolling the operational risk of an organization or employeecorresponding to a data processing operation. The error rate can also beused to measure the expected operational risk of the data processingoperation, thus it is useful for setting up accounting risk reserves andfor meeting regulatory requirements (or other operational riskrequirements) such as Sarbanes Oxley and Basel II.

The embodiments of the invention also allow rating/benchmarking oforganizations and employees on the basis of how well they controloperational risk, thus enabling an apples-to-apples comparison betweenorganizations with different processes, document structure, size, etc.

The embodiments of the present invention offer a predominantly orcompletely automated method and system for reduction, prevention andprediction of errors in data processing operations. The variousembodiments allow avoiding a large percentage of expected operationalrisk while expending a relatively small amount of labor. This isachieved by systematically focusing on the critical fields of thedocument, which accounts for a disproportionately high percentage of thetotal expected risk. Further, the identification of the critical fieldsis automated.

Various embodiments of the present invention eliminate the need forsampling documents with known correct transcriptions. Such a process iscompletely automatic and can be reliably carried out in a manner whereemployees are not aware that they are being tested. This is because theyhave no way of differentiating the documents being used for samplingfrom the general flow of documents that they process. Therefore, anemployee cannot ‘game’ the sampling.

Other embodiments of the invention provide a method for identifyingcritical fields for each employee. Therefore, training effort can bedirected toward the critical fields identified for each employee. Thisallows tailored targeting/customization, thereby ensuring better returnson investment of training activities. Error rates can also be estimatedwithout identifying which specific operator was responsible for adiscrepancy. Error rate estimation can be achieved by sampling a smallnumber of documents.

Further, since the process is automated, the quality management can beperformed real time. Further, the employees need not be aware that theirquality is being audited. Further, unlike in training intensiveprocedures such as “Six Sigma” the data entry operators do not need tobe specifically trained to use these methodologies which may beautomated.

The system, as described in the present invention or any of itscomponents, may be embodied in the form of a computer system. Typicalexamples of a computer system include a general-purpose computer, aprogrammed microprocessor, a micro-controller, a peripheral integratedcircuit element, and other devices or arrangements of devices that arecapable of implementing the steps that constitute the method of thepresent invention.

The computer system comprises a computer, an input device, a displayunit and the Internet. The computer comprises a microprocessor. Themicroprocessor can be one or more general- or special-purpose processorssuch as a Pentium®, Centrino®, Power PC®, and a digital signalprocessor. The microprocessor is connected to a communication bus. Thecomputer also includes a memory, which may include Random Access Memory(RAM) and Read Only Memory (ROM). The computer system also comprises astorage device, which can be a hard disk drive or a removable storagedevice such as a floppy disk drive, optical disk drive, and so forth.The storage device can also be other similar means for loading computerprograms or other instructions into the computer system. The computersystem also includes one or more user input devices such as a mouse anda keyboard, and one or more output devices such as a display unit andspeakers.

The computer system includes an operating system (OS), such as Windows,Windows CE, Mac, Linux, Unix, a cellular phone OS, or a proprietary OS.

The computer system executes a set of instructions that are stored inone or more storage elements, to process input data. The storageelements may also hold data or other information as desired. A storageelement may be an information source or physical memory element presentin the processing machine.

The set of instructions may include various commands that instruct theprocessing machine to perform specific tasks such as the steps thatconstitute the method of the present invention. The set of instructionsmay be in the form of a software program. The software may be in variousforms, such as system software or application software. Further, thesoftware may be in the form of a collection of separate programs, aprogram module with a larger program, or a portion of a program module.The software might also include modular programming in the form ofobject-oriented programming and may use any suitable language such as C,C++ and Java. The processing of input data by the processing machine maybe in response to user commands to results of previous processing, or inresponse to a request made by another processing machine.

While the preferred embodiments of the invention have been illustratedand described, it will be clear that it is not limited to theseembodiments only. Numerous modifications, changes, variations,substitutions and equivalents will be apparent to those skilled in theart, without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention, asdescribed in the claims.

1. A method for improving quality of a data processing operation in a plurality of documents, the method comprising the steps of: estimating an error rate for each of at least two fields in the plurality of documents, by sampling a set of documents from among the plurality of documents, wherein the step of estimating an error rate comprises: estimating a probability that data typed for a field in a document is in error, without knowing a correct transcription for the field; and estimating the error rate based at least in part on the estimated probability of error; and identifying a set of critical fields in the plurality of documents based on which fields have error rates higher than a threshold.
 2. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of estimating an error rate comprises: assigning a relative weight to each of the fields; determining a frequency of errors for each of the fields; and determining an error rate for a field based on the relative weight for that field and the frequency of errors for that field.
 3. The method of claim 2 wherein the threshold for a field varies as a function of the relative weight for that field.
 4. The method of claim 2 wherein the relative weight for a field is based on the operational impact of data processing errors in that field relative to the operational impact of data processing errors in other fields.
 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of sampling the set of documents comprises sampling the set of documents without comparing to known transcriptions of the documents.
 6. The method of claim 1 wherein the threshold is a predetermined constant value.
 7. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of identifying a set of critical fields further comprises selecting the field with the highest error rates until the aggregate sum of error rates for the selected fields reaches a threshold.
 8. The method of claim 1 wherein the threshold is adjustable.
 9. The method of claim 1 wherein the threshold is a function of the distribution of error rates for the fields.
 10. The method of claim 1 further comprising: automatically updating the set of critical fields based on updates of the estimated error rates.
 11. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of estimating a probability of error for a field comprises: determining whether different clusters are equivalent answers for fields in the documents; and accounting for equivalency between different clusters when estimating the probability of error.
 12. The method of claim 11 wherein the step of determining whether different clusters are equivalent answers depends on a size of the clusters.
 13. The method of claim 11 wherein the clusters that have the largest size for a field are determined to be equivalent and correct answers.
 14. The method of claim 11 wherein the clusters that have the largest size for a field are determined to be not equivalent, and each non-equivalent cluster is assigned a probability of being a correct answer that is a function of the cluster's size.
 15. The method of claim 11 wherein the different clusters include different modes.
 16. The method of claim 11 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower average historical error rate, is selected as a correct answer for a field.
 17. The method of claim 11 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower error rate for a field within the plurality of documents, is selected as a correct answer for the field.
 18. The method of claim 11 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower historic error rate for a field within the plurality of documents, is selected as a correct answer for the field.
 19. The method of claim 11 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower error rate within the plurality of documents, is selected as a correct answer for the field.
 20. The method of claim 1 wherein the step of estimating a probability of error for a field depends on whether the data entered for a field is a default for that field.
 21. A computer program product for a quality management system, the computer program product stored on a tangible computer-readable storage medium and including instructions that, when loaded into memory, cause a processor to carry out the steps of: estimating an error rate for each of at least two fields in the plurality of documents, by sampling a set of documents from among the plurality of documents, wherein the step of estimating an error rate comprises: estimating a probability that data typed for a field in a document is in error, without knowing a correct transcription for the field; and estimating the error rate based at least in part on the estimated probability of error; and identifying a set of critical fields in the plurality of documents based on which fields have error rates higher than a threshold.
 22. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the step of estimating an error rate comprises: assigning a relative weight to each of the fields; determining a frequency of errors for each of the fields; and determining an error rate for a field based on the relative weight for that field and the frequency of errors for that field.
 23. The computer program product of claim 22 wherein the threshold for a field varies as a function of the relative weight for that field.
 24. The computer program product of claim 22 wherein the relative weight for a field is based on the operational impact of data processing errors in that field relative to the operational impact of data processing errors in other fields.
 25. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the step of sampling the set of documents comprises sampling the set of documents without comparing to known transcriptions of the documents.
 26. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the threshold is a predetermined constant value.
 27. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the step of identifying a set of critical fields further comprises selecting the field with the highest error rates until the aggregate sum of error rates for the selected fields reaches a threshold.
 28. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the threshold is adjustable.
 29. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the threshold is a function of the distribution of error rates for the fields.
 30. The computer program product of claim 21 further comprising: automatically updating the set of critical fields based on updates of the estimated error rates.
 31. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the step of estimating a probability of error for a field comprises: determining whether different clusters are equivalent answers for fields in the documents; and accounting for equivalency between different clusters when estimating the probability of error.
 32. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the step of determining whether different clusters are equivalent answers depends on a size of the clusters.
 33. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the clusters that have the largest size for a field are determined to be equivalent and correct answers.
 34. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the clusters that have the largest size for a field are determined to be not equivalent, and each non-equivalent cluster is assigned a probability of being a correct answer that is a function of the cluster's size.
 35. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the different clusters include different modes.
 36. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower average historical error rate, is selected as a correct answer for a field.
 37. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower error rate for a field within the plurality of documents, is selected as a correct answer for the field.
 38. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower historic error rate for a field within the plurality of documents, is selected as a correct answer for the field.
 39. The computer program product of claim 31 wherein the cluster, for which the associated operators have a lower error rate within the plurality of documents, is selected as a correct answer for the field.
 40. The computer program product of claim 21 wherein the step of estimating a probability of error for a field depends on whether the data entered for a field is a default for that field. 